I love these conversations. Sometimes I get into debates with church folk who fear that what I say will make them dissolve into dust if the listen to me. They adamantly push their opinions and beliefs on me as if being inn their presence is something that I should hold onto. I tell them the same thing that I tell both sides. Fact: "We don't know shit" Fact: For every possibility that we could ever think up we are left with nothing more than belief" Until I can extend my life long enough to see some form of truth, I am left with with more tangible things like living daily life and survival. I recognize that proof one way or another doesn't change life for me. I'm here on this site because it's a community that I feel very comfortable in and the knowledge that we all feel similarly helps me make it through the day. That's really all it's about, yes?

Is there a fairy called Mehitabel living at the bottom of my garden?

Can I PROVE she's not there? No. Can I PROVE she is there? No. I therefore do not believe the case for, or against, the existence of Mehitabel the Fairy is provable - making me a 'Mehitabel Agnostic'.

That said, do I actually believe Mehitabel IS there? No - of course I don't. The whole concept of Mehitabel existing makes no sense. I therefore do not believe in the existence of Mehitabel - therefore making me a 'Mehitabel Atheist'.

Atheism and Agnosticism are descriptions of two DIFFERENT AND INDEPENDENT perceptions of reality. One about the existence of god himself, and the other about the possibility of proving the matter.

You can be an Atheist without being an Agnostic - "I do not believe in the existence of god, and I further believe the matter is provable".

You can be an Agnostic without being an Atheist - "I do not believe the existence of god can be proven, but I believe he exists".

You can be neither Atheist nor Agnostic - "I believe in the existence of god, and I believe that existence is provable".

Or you can be both Atheist and Agnostic - "I do not believe in the existence of god, but I believe the matter unprovable."

It's two entirely separate questions:-

DO YOU BELIEVE IN THE EXISTENCE OF AT LEAST ONE GOD? Answer 'Yes' and you're a THEIST, answer anything else (ie, you don't actively believe) and you're not a theist. The word for 'not a theist' is ATHEIST. There is no option 3 - you're either one or the other.

DO YOU BELIEVE THE EXISTENCE OR NON-EXISTENCE OF GOD IS PROVABLE? Answer 'Yes' and you're a GNOSTIC, answer anything else (ie, you don't actively believe the matter provable) and you're not a gnostic. The word for 'not a gnostic' is AGNOSTIC. Again, there is no option 3 - you're either one or the other.

Personally I'm an Agnostic Atheist.

At this point in my life, I've had that debate so many times, I have no interest
in having it again.
I'm not saying it shouldn't be debated, just not by me.
There is no credible, verifiable evidence to prove the existence of gods.
Unless and until there is any, I will not be tempted to rethink my position.
I'm really good with not believing in any gods, and being fairly well convinced
that none have ever existed, nor ever will.

A deity has no mass or energy. How would we know this? I think pixies are living in my shoes. In fact, they are in there even when my feet are in there.

To the general public - if I'm going to state my position at all - I identify as an atheist. It's just simpler, and I'm doing my part thereby to erode the demonization of atheists as baby-eating monsters. The general public doesn't understand the meaning of the word "agnostic" anyway, and it's very time-consuming to explain. So I stick with "I'm an atheist."

But I'm both. I'm an atheist - I don't believe in any gods - and I'm an agnostic - humans are not in a position to know for absolute certain about the existence or non-existence of gods. The latter position isn't about hedging my bets for the afterlife. As @UpsideDownAgain so aptly said, "since I worship no gods, I'm screwed either way." Rather, it's about intellectual honesty. I was once so sure that the Christian God existed; now I'm equally convinced that it doesn't - but I've wisened up to recognize that nobody can know anything about intangible god things to the degree that I once "knew" the opposite.

How useful is this? Not at all. I'm also agnostic about the existence of green flying unicorns on some other planet. I don't believe in them. It's just about intellectual honesty. I'd also love to be able to bring a few Christians to the recognition that they don't know what they imagine that they know.

Yes, negatives can be proven. In fact, ten of the fifteen valid forms of the classical syllogism have negative conclusions. For example, premises “All A are B” and “No B are C” prove the universal negative, “No A are C”; and premises “Some A are not B” and “All C are B” prove the particular negative, “Some A are not C.” Likewise, in propositional logic, the premises “If A then B” and “It is not the case the B” prove the negative proposition, “It is not the case that A.” What holds in each case it that you can’t prove a negative conclusion without having a negative premise. And the same is the case with the scissors example. That is, from “There are stamps [paper clips, etc., etc.] in the drawer in cannot be concluded that “There are no scissors in the drawer” without the negative understanding that “There is no other place in the drawer where the scissors could be.”

There is no knowing the unknowable non sequitur should make no difference here just enjoy the people and ideas I think that is truly this place and people

Because your mind should be open to any new evidence that may come in.

i've answered this question before. i consider myself an atheist b/c i don't believe in a personal god but i don't totally discount the possibility of superior beings out there which would compare to us as we compare to a protozoa.

I agree that negative assertions can be proven, but IMO no proof is absolute. If a person is interested in whether or not God exists he should concentrate, not on proof or disproof but on searching. Belief, disbelief and proofs are for people who just want to argue—muddy the water so they don’t have to look at something.

The God concept does not lend itself to proof because we are talking about ultimate reality. Existence at that higher level is beyond our puny little intellects, which are mired in the sensory dreamworld of illusion. The very concept of time is an illusion according to quantum gravity theory, and therefore any question about existence, creation, immortality or selfhood as a body is meaningless.

Besides atheism and agnosticism, someone here has pointed out a third option: ignosticism. Ignostics claim that it is meaningless to argue for or against God because the word can not be defined in a clear and acceptable way.

Great comments and I have nothing to add that has not already been said. TY for posting and providing an enjoyable morning with coffee read.

I will say it is more likely just an individual thing. My Dad was raised Catholic, stopped 'believing' at an early age and claim to be atheist. Then decided agnostic was a better way to define things.
Sadly I never really got to sit down and talk with him about all this before he passed as I moved away when I was 20 and well many know how it is when relationships with one or both parents is strained. I think that is my greatest regret, the missed time chatting with a very intelligent human.

A negative can be proven if the affirmation is falsifiable or if there is no intern consistency in the proposition.
3 different cases here
If it is falsifiable all you need is to perform the experiment.
If it lacks internal consistency, the proposition is proving itself wrong
BUT it it is internally consistent and NON falsifiable then you can't prove or disprove (but also is a meaningless proposition in terms of logical knowledge).

There is a 4th where the experiment is impossible like mathematical formulas that work with all numbers you tested, but there is no prof that will work forever, or the case of the black swam that can always be hidden somewhere you haven't looked yet.

The non falsifiable and the impossibility to complete the test are the cases where a negative can't be proved.
But in the case that there are no positive evidences the logical way is act as if do not exist because you can say an infinitude of swam colors exist, we just haven't met it yet, and for practical purposes this kind of proposition has no meaning.
And THAT is the agnostic position, something that can't be tested and at the same time can be proposed with an infinitude of variations (colors of exotic swams or gods) have no meaning in the objective world and can be ignored or treated as non existent.

I've pointed out that an alibi proves a negative at least to the degree a positive is proven. Demonstrating someone was somewhere else during the time of a crime also demonstrates they did not commit that crime (if we all accept time travel is not possible, yada yada yada).

But then people say, "What about twins?" or "What about mistaken identity?", etc., which are all problems with positive claims also. If those are all problems with proving a negative, they are equally problems in proving a positive...and thus a "problem" in proving anything at all.

You can also prove a negative by demonstrating it is logically contradictory in some way.

Unfalsifiable claims cannot be proven false. That means they are the weakest possible claims, and on a very, very long list of mutually exclusive unfalsifiable claims. And thus entirely pointless as claims (except to remain on that pointless list until someone figures out how to test them, at which point they are not unfalsifiable anymore anyway).

i know for sure there are no gods, i am 100% sure about this, why? because all gods that ever existed were and are all man made, and as i have said many times before, i do not give a flying fuck about who chooses to believe in what or not, not my business ergo I don't care

I am really rather tired of this somewhat artificial division between the two words. I was always of the opinion that the arguments between the two were similar to dancing on the head of a pin. However, since joining this site I have revised my view of those who are adamantly agnostic, a group I hitherto though of as less certain of their disbelief than those like me who are atheist. I use the word “adamant” deliberately...because I have only discovered these more militant agnostics here on this site. I find their arguments to be uncompelling, as they use the same arguments for their agnosticism as the religious do for their beliefs.

As our knowledge has grown, we've eliminated the concept of ether but there are far more things that we recognize now that we didn't have the ability to before, like radiation. Radiation always existed but we didn't always have the tools to recognize and measure it. Yes, now we can demonstrate the absense of it but we couldn't always.

I'm open to the possibility that more things exist which we don't have the capacity to recognize or measure at present, including perhaps gods. I'm comfortable rejecting the existence of specific gods, like the abrahamic god but feel no need to conclude definitively that there is no such being at all. It's not out of concern over the possibility of an afterlife because since I worship no gods I'm screwed either way. It's more related to the fact that I was so sure before that there was a god and I've recognized how foolish that was. I feel no need to go the reverse direction and say I'm sure there is no god when I really am not.

i don't run with scissors either! it's dangerous!

i also don't worry much about the ag vs ath thingie, though i do occasionally explain why i am the latter rather than the former, meaning and hopefully showing no disrespect to the former. i do mean and show disrespect to those who think it's a fight worth attacking the "enemy" over. i don't even attack christians for believing what they do; i attack people who try to legislate, adjudicate or execute their religion into my life or into anyone's life who doesn't want it there. that's different, right? so someone who says "you atheists are so egotistical!" or "you agnostics are so wimpy" might make me a bit snappish but those who make their case without attacking anyone are not offensive to me. why should they be, right?

as for an afterlife, if there is a heaven i don't want to go unless i can control the music and the menu. since that might make it a less heavenly place for others than it would be for me, i just don't see the logistics of it. so much for an afterlife.

g

Just like organized religion, there are denominations among atheists and agnostics. I was born Roman catholic in France, I have some memory of the nuns with rulers, my family left France before my 4th birthday. Later in life, when I was Jr. High, I made a lot of friends, all religions and those without. Most were actually Christians / Catholics even at our ages then, we were all the same. Most of them went to same high school as me. Their parents changed, my Christian friends parents changed for the worst to the point they would abuse their kids pretty badly for what all teens went through at that age. Some of my best friends were were hospitalized and some did not live. This is when I started literally losing friends nearly annually for the next 25 years of my life, this started me losing whatever faith I had in the concept of God and Christ. These young followers, my friends closer than family, killed so young by their parents worshipers of God and Christ. I was going through suicidal stages every time I lost a friend, I became atheist, but I was this way only at home. I had to change when i was around my friends and others. When conversations about religion, politics with anyone around me (away from home) arouse, I would curse about religion. It wasn't until I was in Jr. College, when someone who came to talk to me when I was crying after losing yet another very close friend. That person stayed with me, others came they were just asking questions about myself, my opinions and so forth I unloaded everything on all of them. No one spoke for no less than 3 minutes, most were shocked, the first one to speak started telling me I'll get through this like before. As an ice breaker someone asked about my bloodline, from birth father I'm from the Moors from mother the Vikings. That started a different conversation of Norse mythology, in which I do believe in, some were confused by my answer, stating Christianity comes from Norse Mythology. After doing some research on that, most sources were saying the same thing creation is in every mythology. Basically agnostics have always been around but not necessarily atheists, they were dealt with. The stereotype of an atheist is the other extreme of evangelicals. I tell people I'm agnostic and I add religion is not for me. I'm 46 yrs old now, I have met some very friendly party like Christians who felt everyone is entitled to believe whatever they want as long it doesn't encroach unto other people's beliefs. I had begun to use that for myself, that's what it's all truly all about.

Your second statement is false to fact.... History and archaeology​ both show that religion is made up and recycled bullshit from previous myths and legends....

I merely do not claim to know what I can not show to true.
I can not show there are no gods. But I can most definitely show that theists are lying or contracting themselves, which is a very good reason to not believe anything they say about their gods and live my life free of such fantasies.

Like I said somewhere else:

Supose you tell me you can lift a truck with your mind. I'm 100% sure you can't, cause this is impossible. Magic is not real.

It's up to you to try to prove me wrong, but until then I give your claim absolutely no value.

Wrong type of scissors.

I don't basically disagree with you but I think that the "Where are the scissors Darling?" analogue is not a good one. The real equivalent should be. "There are no scissors in an unknown draw somewhere perhaps on a distant planet." Which is the real meaning of you can not prove a negative, it does not refer to specific cases, but only to generalized negatives, using only logic not evidence.

No, you can't prove a negative and no, you can't know with 100% certainty. The latter claim is easily shown by the possibility that everything might be an illusion, a matrix scenario, brain-in-a vat etc. You can't even know 100% that the draw exists, so how could you say that it is scissor-less. There is always a tiny possibility that something might be wrong.
Now the former claim. In your example with the draw you don't prove a negative when showing it to be empty. You make a positive claim about the inside of the draw. If we could observe the whole universe at once somehow we could prove that something doesn't exist but only observable things that are inside of the universe and prove only in relation to the observation that could be faulty.
The difference between agnostic and atheist is most often only a definitional difference. Agnostics don't hold the believe that a god exists, which in my book is an atheist. 'Agnostic' only means that you can't know it. But some people for whatever reason don't want to call themselves atheist.